Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance - Wikipedia

• Oncenawhile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mein Kampf in the Arabic language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Oncenawhile's behavior is unacceptably hostile on Talk:Mein Kampf in the Arabic language, constituting a violation of WP:Civility, WP:Personal attacks and WP:Assume good faith.

In fact, this user precipitated an ongoing hostile debate on the page with his/her aggressive comments, "How did this propaganda survive the deletion debate?", despite knowing full well that it went through the afd process [1].

The user then later followed up with this extremely unhelpful statement which violates all that I listed above: "This debate is perhaps the most absurd of all the valiant attempts I have seen to keep Zionist propaganda out of Wikipedia" [2]. The key issue is that Oncenawhile is so comfortable bomb-throwing, tainting all of his/her opponents as propagandists, which therefore implies that he/she is the real "arbiter" of truth. One cannot work with another editor that assumes they have a monopoly on the right and attacks others that disagree.

The troubling part is when I asked Oncenawhile to strike these comments, s/he doesn't even recognize how s/he has done wrong [3]. S/he thinks its perfectly acceptable, and not even negative, to label editors propagandists or as having specific political beliefs they have not claimed. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Plot Spoiler, thank you for your post. I would ask that you kindly retract three key misrepresentative statements above: (1) "tainting all of his/her opponents as propagandists"; (2) "attacks others that disagree"; (3) "label editors propagandists or as having specific political beliefs they have not claimed".

I have not portrayed any editor as such, or attacked anyone. The reference to propaganda was my interpretation of the content being debated, NOT a comment on the editors themselves. The characterisation of the content as such is supported by its being pushed on a number of single-agenda propaganda websites. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your incredulity at these charges puts on full display your ingrained WP:Battleground behavior. Its troubling that you do not recognize the wrong you committed and continue to refer to material you disagree with simply as "propaganda," rather than engaging with it in a more appropriate and mature manner. And it is a logical assumption that if you believe certain editors are posting Zionist propaganda, they are therefore Zionist propagandists. Don't cloud this issue at hand. Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The statements you pointed to are not at uncivil. They are factual. You may object to their contents, but that does not make them uncivil. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that dismissing certain sources as simply "Zionist propaganda" is a simple factual statement, then you seem to be affected with the same battleground behavior and uncivil behavior as oncenawhile. If you are the arbiter of civility on this page, I have made a big mistake by even attempting to address the issue here. Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not uncivil behaviour and as far as I can see not an issue which we can resolve. It's certainly an opinion. It's not an opinion I share, but there's no name-calling. There's no bad behaviour. There is an inherent POV being presented, but that's not uncivil. Remember, "the aim of this page is to request assistance in moving disputes towards resolution, not to punish misbehaviour". So if you want a resolution, feel free to continue. If you want Oncenawhile punished or sanctioned, you'll have to go somewhere else. But as far as I can see, the other editor is only voicing his opinions not attacking other editors. Perhaps others would like to voice an opinion on the behaviour listed above. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Jack Sebastian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Talk:Ben Linus (edit | [[Talk: Talk:Ben Linus|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sebastian and myself are engaged in a content dispute at another page (New Amsterdam (TV series)) where he has made several accusations against me, and also initiated a DRN. In the meantime he's followed me to other pages, in particular to Talk:Ben Linus where I had noticed that some comments were out of sequence, and in conformance with WP:REFACTOR ( "Restructuring... Moving a comment to a more appropriate place in the discussion") I moved a few recent (well, 2009) comments placed out of sequence at the top of the page to the bottom. Shortly after I found Sebastian had reverted my edit, stating only "undo as per WP:REFACTOR", which made no sense. So I reverted it with a comment that may have been provocative ("undoing revert by stalker"). Predictably, he then reverted my edit, but added the false accusation that I had "delete[d] others' conversations". In fact, not one word was deleted. I only moved entire sections. Then he proceeded to archive the page to make reverting difficult.

The edit history:

• 04:02, 9 November 2011 Jack Sebastian (784 bytes) (step 3 was filling the new archive. Step 3 is removing the info from here, as it is present in a linked archive) (undo)
• 03:54, 9 November 2011 Jack Sebastian (80,023 bytes) (like this - step 1 of 3) (undo)
• 03:52, 9 November 2011 Jack Sebastian (79,966 bytes) (Undid revision 459641006 by Barsoomian (talk) undo as per WP:REFACTOR - we don't delete others' conversations. If you want to get rid of older conversations, you archive them) (undo)
• 23:30, 8 November 2011 Barsoomian (79,971 bytes) (Undid revision 459477319 by Jack Sebastian (talk) undoing revert by stalker) (undo)
• 00:39, 8 November 2011 Jack Sebastian (79,966 bytes) (Undid revision 459434856 by Barsoomian (talk) undo as per WP:REFACTOR) (undo)
• 18:09, 7 November 2011 Barsoomian m (79,971 bytes) (ordered chronologically) (undo)
• 01:45, 3 March 2011 Sanders11 (79,966 bytes) (tidy) (undo)

I posted on his talk page here, pointing out that he had made a false accusation against me (now enshrined forever in the edit history) and asking him to respond. He deleted my comment and when I reposted, he made this unpleasant response, full of more accusations of bad behaviour on my part, including an assertion that my edits were wrong, though on different grounds, but not withdrawing let alone apologising for his initial charge. I'm not experienced in negotiating the formal dispute mechanisms here; though I see that Sebastian has very often, but I need a bit of guidance: First were my edits above wrong or ill-advised? Second, how do I deal with this guy, who continually attacks my work, integrity and character? Barsoomian (talk) 04:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Call me crazy, but I would think that the first step would probably be to not attack the work, integrity and character of someone else, but that seems too obvious. Kidding aside, you might want to invest in a mirror; everything you have been accusing me of is what you yourself have been engaging in.

I think you left out some rather important bits, like the accusation of stalking you to this edit. I readily admit that I looked at your edit history (as you appear to have done with me). Your behavior at Talk:New Amsterdam (TV series) was so outrageously uncivil and filled with personal attacks that I went to see if you were like this with others. While looking, I saw an edit where you appeared to be refactoring the posts of other users in the talk page of the Linus article. We aren;t allowed to do that, especially with material that is over two years old. The proper thing to do was to archive the material in the original order that the initial posters intended, which I did.

As far as I can tell, that was the only edit I have made to a page that Barsoomian has worked on (apart from the New Amsterdam article and discussion pages), so I am not sure where the "In the meantime he's followed me to other pages" is coming from.

And yes, I deleted his personal attacks from my page. No one gets to drop the f-bomb on my page and expect it to get any real consideration. I even state it in a large friendly yellow infobox at the top: "I am polite and appreciate politeness in turn. If you act like an ass-hat, I'll ignore you, report you, or simply point and laugh." To my credit, I didn't point and laugh, but I did file a complaint at AN/I (upon consultation with an editor at DRN); that can be found here, and was filed about a minute after this one was - I didn't know about this until I posted there. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll point out that when he says I "drop[ped] the f-bomb on [his] page", I actually wrote "WTF are you talking about...." asking him to explain the original complaint above. If he takes exception to that, I'm truly sorry for him. Barsoomian (talk) 05:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here for my suggestion. m.o.p 05:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• martinvl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I need some assistance; perhaps help and advice as to how to deal with civility issues which are causing me some distress.

My belief is that I have been subject to incivilty and rudeness from a user, manifested during discussions over recent content disputes; even with false and offensive accusations being made. I have attempted to engage the user on their talkpage, but have been unable to get any constructive response.

Example diffs showing the user's actions:

• [4] note the edit summary invokes WP:POINT (my edit which was reverted is here).
• [5] the user made "wind-up", WP:HOUND and WP:POINT allegations against me in defence of a 3RR action.
• [6] my advice characterised as a demand for an apology.
• [7] the user made allegations of a "blatant and more importantly disruptive anti-metrication campaign".
• [8] an accusation of POV-pushing (which I deleted [9]).
• [10] a post to another user's talkpage characterising my contributions as "rubbish" and making a false accusation about 3RR entrapment.

Example diffs showing my attempt to engage the user:

• [11] challenging a rude edit summary - [12] the non-conciliatory reply.
• [13] advising substantiation or an apology - no reply.
• [14] explained my advice again - no reply.
• [15] asked for a retraction - no reply.
• [16] a message about their inflammatory message to my talkpage - no reply.
• [17] my strongly worded request for a retration - no reply (despite a further reminder [18]).

What can be done about this - or have I got to grin and bear the false accusations and general rudeness? -- de Facto (talk). 16:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Declaring my involvement, not in this particular dispute but on that article, I must say I found Martin's response to the notification of this request on his talk page particularly unhelpful here. That said, IMO it does help demonstrate the problem with this editor at this article. None of the points raised in that message - itself not exactly civil - are an excuse or good reason for the rank incivility and the repeated accusations of bad faith that Martin has been dishing out to de Facto and others, and I believe it would be helpful if this were made clear to him by outside editors. Pfainuk talk 18:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just read the response on his talk page and it seems very helpful and elucidating. The message is not uncivil. It seems to be factual. The editor appears to be requesting two things

1. that his accuser don't have all of the facts and a sub-point appears to be that they don't accept information from others who may, and
2. that his accusers identify themselves so that he can focus on discussing the issues rather than attempting to be overly broad in responses and having to give background information.

If you see something that's not civil, please identify it directly. I have not looked at DeFacto's diffs yet, but the statement by Pfainuk seems biased. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the progression of the discussion. It seems to me that DeFacto and Pfainuk are irritating martinvl. While some of the responses are uncivil, they are always backed by reasoned responses as to why. For instance stating that there were "absurd and unjust allegations" is followed by an explanation. Perhaps Martinvl should tone the rhetoric down and DeFacto and Pfainuk should walk away for a while and stop engaging and inflaming the editor. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit, I'm quite bemused by this response. I would note that I haven't edited the article or talk page at all since 29 October. There are four editors (not three) involved in the current dispute - and I'm not one of them. I have reviewed my contributions and I feel that I have stuck clearly to the topics at hand, only bringing up behavioural issues when WP:3RR and WP:CANVASS were clearly broken.

I am also surprised that you did not find Martin's message uncivil. Frankly, I find it difficult to see how trying to push another editor into dropping a request for assistance here by threatening to post a retaliatory complaint can be considered civil. I note as background that a core part of recent discussions has been how WP:OR is to be defined, and the frequently poor quality of sourcing for certain pieces of information.

As to your second post, I'm afraid I'm unclear as to who and what the third and fourth sentences refer to. I note that the reference to "absurd and unjust allegations" was made by de Facto in reference to a false allegation made by Martin to another user (that de Facto "has trapped me once with a 3RR"). Pfainuk talk 20:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I don't know what you expect. First 3RR and CANVAS are WP:ANI issues and have nothing to do with Wikiquette assistance. I could see, however, as the subject of the comments, how they may be less civil than you would like. However, I'm a neutral third party and don't see a sufficient volume of incivility. Feel free to ignore my suggestions for walking away for a while. It's just a suggestion and it seems that you have an axe to grind. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 3RR was dealt with in the normal way and the canvassing turned out to be pretty irrelevant because it failed. Hence not going to ANI: there would have been no benefit to the encyclopædia in opening an ANI thread. I brought them up only because I'm trawling through my contributions to find what it was that you felt was objectionable in my contributions and I'm afraid I'm drawing a blank. I note finally that as for walking away, I did that nearly two weeks ago as other editors got caught up in a discussion that did not interest me. The existence of this thread demonstrates that it did not help. Pfainuk talk 21:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Walter Görlitz, thanks for taking the trouble to comment on this. Did you say that you'd read through all the diffs? Then that "they are always backed by reasoned responses as to why." Actually none of the remarks that I challenged were backed up by a reasoned response. That's part of the problem as I see it. Unsubstantiated allegations were thrown, then when challenged - nothing but silence. The only reason I'm here is because I couldn't get any response at all, reasoned or otherwise. Please clarify your comments. -- de Facto (talk). 21:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I confused the issue by mis-attributing the only really uncivil act to martinvl. I didn't look closely at who made the comments. Looking at his actions:

1. Reverted as per WP:POINT. Link mine. Nothing at all uncivil.
2. Explanation of actions. Does stated that he felt he was being hounded. Not uncivil.
3. Not willing to offer an appology and states that he will "await guidance from the administrators". Nothing uncivil.
4. Not sure how accusing an editor of having a campaign is uncivil if he's proven it as he did above.
5. Asks for POV-pushing to stop. Nothing uncivil about the request. Do you object to the claim that you have a POV or that you stop?
6. Blaming someone else for being trapped into a 3RR isn't uncivil. He doesn't state your edits were rubbish rather that he was reverting a lot of rubbish. Do you feel your edits are rubbish? Was he only reverting your edits at the time? Not sure how you've made this mental link.

Then come attempts to engage. It seems that those responses are less civil than those you're accusing the editor of.

It seems martinvl's responses are not outside of civil response. May I suggest WP:DDE or just let it go? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Walter, with all due respect, you appear to be taking Martinvl's comments at face value, and without looking at the context and motivation (and to be frank truth) behind them. There was no WP:POINT editing (can you see any?) on my part. There was no POV-pushing on my part (can you see any?). There was no campaign on my part (did you see one?). The comments were all unsubstantiated, and requests for clarification or retraction were ignored. That, in my books, is uncivil. OTOH, there is possibly much bitterness on Martinvl's part after being subject to repeated challenges (by several editors) over his blatant OR and non-neutral edits, this may in some way explain his actions. His method of defence against the challenges, particularly those from me, appears to be insult-throwing. -- de Facto (talk). 22:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am taking them at face value. However, suggesting that martinvl was being uncivil is not supported with the diffs that were offered. You may not like his actions, but that doesn't make them uncivil. Now if he used profanity or started in with ad hominem attacks the lack of civility would be clear. WP:CIVIL: "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. In order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates." Wikipedia:Etiquette is also a good read. I don't see incivility so I'll step back and let others respond. Perhaps someone else will see it your way. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After going through all the diffs provided, I think WG has pretty well hit the nail on the head with this one. I doubt you will find much support for your view of things DF, you have simply not shown where Martin has stepped over the line. - Nick Thorne ^talk 07:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK Nick, thanks for the comment. I rather thought that false accusations and inflammatory edit summaries were "over the line", and then refusal to retract them (or attempt to justify them) compounded that. Perhaps Wiki's line is further out than I thought it was. Do you think that I should go to JimWae's talkpage and put the record straight (to clear my name) or just leave it at that, with the possibility that others reading it there in the future may believe it to be true, and possibly hold it up as "evidence" in any future duspute with or against me? -- de Facto (talk). 08:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any more advice about how to deal with the false accusation of 3RR trapping in this post to another user's talkpage please? -- de Facto (talk). 13:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore it. It's prima facie ridiculous. An editor can't "trap" another editor into 3RR, so any reasonably knowledgeably wikipedian coming across the comment will know its bogus. Gerardw (talk) 13:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Morgan Leigh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Elinruby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Xenophrenic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wnt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Protect IP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Things are very unhappy and hostile on the Protect IP page atm. This conflict started when Xenophrenic started reverting all other editor's edits and then beginning a very long, pedantic, bullying process on the talk page of Protect IP and Elinruby's and my talk pages. I tried to reason with Xenophrenic on the article talk page but the things he does and the things he says on the talk page are not always the same. I suggested to Xenophrenic that both he and I refrain from editing the article and I asked for a RFC to try to get new input from other editors. And that is when Elinruby arrived. He quickly discovered that he was having exactly the same problems with Xenophrenic that I had. Once Elinruby started editing Xenophrenic seems to have forgotten about his agreement to not edit and this caused me to post on the talk page about his behaviour. I posted what I thought was a reasonable assesment of his actions, but he removed it saying it was a personal attack. He may have a point. But only a wee bit. Honest. :| Probably I could have been a bit more calm about it but frustrations levels were high as I could not get any sensible answers out of him. At this stage I am still refraining from editing the article and Elinruby is suffering the same treatment I got from Xenophrenic. It has got to the stage where they are arguing about individual words. It is difficult to cite diffs as Xenophrenic often makes edits in which he changes many things but only documents some of them. This makes the process of following what has been done very difficult. Elinruby has been doing a good job of trying to be calm and sort this out but things are not going well. Please help. Morgan Leigh | Talk 04:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This board is about incivility, not content disputes - your reason for not posting diffs would seem to me to refer to edits to the article itself, I would not expect them to contain any incivility except in the edit summary which of course would not be hard to post - so we need to see what you're on about before we can intervene, please provide diffs. Also, have you advised User:Xenophrenic of this report, as required in the instructions at the top of the page?

I am not seeking help with the content of the article but with Xenophrenic's constant harassment of other users. I have advised all involved users of this request. If you read the talk page of the article you will see exactly what I am referring to. Morgan Leigh | Talk 06:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. You need to follow the instructions at the top of this page, which includes the requirement to include diffs. Be respectful of the time of the volunteers here. I for one have absolutely no intention of wading through some discussion looking for what might or might no have offended someone. It is your job as the complainant to explain just what breaches of Wikiquette you are talking about, it is not our job to second guess you. - Nick Thorne ^talk 07:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was posted while I wrote the abovebelow^{(edited by Nick Thorne to correct the thread of discussion)}. I understand your point and will provide some examples, probably sometime tomorrow. Or perhaps Morgan Leigh can work on this now. In the meantime though -- I have never been in one of these before so I am not sure what the time frame is -- please do not close the issue as it does indeed deal with a serious ongoing problem.Elinruby (talk) 08:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more careful when you post to maintain the correct thread of the discussion. The way you had it, it looked like I was replying to your post below, which would make it entirely out of context. I hope this is not a reflection of the way you have interacted with other editors in the discussions that are the subject of this complaint. To be blunt I am not at all impressed.- Nick Thorne ^talk 12:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it did, but I wasn't sure how to fix it besides noting the discrepancy textually. I hesitated to move your comments from the order they appeared in my edit window, since I was complaining about other people moving/losing my comments. So if the way I handled it was incorrect, the incorrectness was nonetheless based on respect for accuracy and for you. I do agree that you were answering Morgan Leigh not me. Thank you for making it right. Elinruby (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I have found Xenophrenic exhausting to deal with. The article has many serious factual and POV flaws but all editing has stalled because of his behavior. Attempts to find middle ground have been met with comments that he is all out of favors, sorry, or doesn't have time for casual surfing (when asked to google EFF + the bill name to verify that the EFF has many many papers on copyright legislation, not just the single position statement he insists on citing to an individual author). When I ask him to show me where exactly it says something in a page he is pointing to, he says he is out of "pointers," as though I were asking him for help setting up a link or something.

We are, yes, to the point where multiple threaded sections with many entries deal with individual words in a single sentence, the same one, by the way, which triggered the RfC that brought me there. Xenophrenic simply says nope, you are wrong, please take this to RSN or Wikiquette assistance if you disagree, and refuses to provide any rationale for undoing other people's edits. He then claims that he has provided one, and will be glad to reiterate it if I am having trouble understanding. If I say sure, we loop through the process again. His behaviour fully bears out the notice on his user page that he does not assume good faith, quite the opposite.

This answer most likely does not meet the documentation standards required, but I just spent half an hour trying and failing to find Xenophrenic's warning to me about civility. He said (for example) that he was upset that I called him "dude." Xenophrenic likes to move big blocks of text around, including other users' comments, and continues to do this despite repeated requests that he stop, because it makes me work harder and feel paranoid ;)

When I saw the message about this post, I was holding my head in my hands over Xenophrenic's contention that I need to make a whole separate wiki page for a Verisign executive rather than simply link to the man's official bio on the Verisign site. This, mind you, was in partial response to his demand that first Morgan Leigh and then I somehow prove that this executive and the other authors of a white paper can be considered experts. This demand is in reference to the same sentence mentioned above. This same sentence is also the subject of an RSN post asking for a ruling on an edit Xenophrenic refuses to discuss, because I am simply wrong, he says. He is currently arguing with people over there about it.

There are also POV issues since all of these weird demands tend to push the article in a partisan position, but I agree with Morgan Leigh that Xenophrenic is beyond unpleasant to deal with. I don't think I have behaved impeccably either, and will admit to a comment in an edit summary about ankle-biting, but I think the talk page may in fact support the comment. I will say that I have done a complete re-write of a page on a public figure who is both reviled and beloved with far less drama than I have experienced on the Protect IP page over whether the Paul Vixie et al can be considered experts on DNS. I will try to get provide a more specific answer with cites reasonably soon, but the RSN post is a fine example of an ongoing problem in the meantime, in my opinion. I'd have walked away days ago if I did not think the article was really important.Elinruby (talk) 08:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is taking longer than I estimated, for which I apologize, I just wanted to say that I am working tonight on diffs for Morgan Leigh's request. I am mostly a Wikimedia person and have not been through the process before, but I think I am getting there, based on the instructions and the examples of the other posts. As a side note, I don't think that what we have is edit warring exactly, as (I think) that status would require that I be re-inserting text he has removed. I have done this a couple of times with very trivial changes out of sheer incredulity that anyone objects. For the most part though, the dynamic is that I ask Xenophrenic for an explanation and he refuses to provide it. I hope to provide some documentation tonight; if not it should be tomorrow. Elinruby (talk) 08:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• EricOntario (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Capital cup national undergraduate mooting tournament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User talk:Night of the Big Wind#Capital Cup Speedy Deletion

I can imagine the the author is angry and disappointed about the speedy deletion of his article, but his reply to me contains to many insults... Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind but I have refactored the above to fix the links.

It looks like your notification to the user was accidentally made on their user page. I have removed that and placed a notification on their talk page. By the way, reports should be made using very neutral language (not as here).

Yes, EricOntario made an uncivil outburst (diff). However, experienced editors should understand what is mentioned in the report, namely that EricOntario is a very new user who is concerned that their article (probably similar to this) was deleted very soon after creation, and some allowance for frustration and total lack of familiarity with Wikipedia's processes should be made.

I recommend that EricOntario read WP:CIVIL and understand that the normal anything goes of the Internet does not apply at Wikipedia. I do not think anything further is required for this isolated incident. Johnuniq (talk) 09:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Lugnuts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cases of penis removal (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cases of penis removal|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User talk:Lugnuts (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Lugnuts|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Lugnuts told me to stop bitching about it!., with the "it" referring to my bringing up problems with the article List of cases of penis removal. Seeing as I had already nominated the article for Afd, 'i was fixing' the problem by having the article go through deletion, but he felt the need to swear at me just because the debate wasn't going his way. (he wanted to keep the article)

When I left him an explanation as to why the article should be deleted (it wasn'ta legitimate list, it was full of cases about random people unlike other lists which link to actual wiki articles), he told me to "get the fuck off my talkpage"

He was also very nasty and rude during the debate, saying WTF?! Is that the best rationale you have? Seriously? There are lots of secondary sources from multiple reliable outlets. End of., and saying "fail" in the edit summary, and "You clearly don't understand this"

He also falsely accused me of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_cases_of_penis_removal&diff=459854566&oldid=459853455 not assuming good faith (I never attacked him, I used the word "abuse" as a synonym for the word "misuse", ie., like "abusing his powers" when I noted Lugnuts was not paying attention to wiki policy, he told me to "come back when you are relevant'". Bunser (talk) 17:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... I can't begin to defend those actions. There's really nothing to do but admit that the behavior was uncivil. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My talkpage, please don't bother me again. What about the constant hounding from this "user" to anyone who disagrees with his deletion rationale? Note that I was informed about this, but the link provided was incorrectly formatted by Ian.thomson. Lugnuts (talk) 18:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide evidence of the hounding through diffs? Even still, it does not excuse uncivil behavior. While I'm not disagreeing with telling someone to leave you alone, telling someone to "fuck off" is completely unacceptable. Pardon my mistake in simply placing the topic name where the example template said "topic," and resuming work elsewhere. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at every keep comment in the AfD. Lugnuts (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts is not telling the truth. I have not responded to Spanglej and Tom Morris's keep comments on the aFd. And it was Lugnuts who hounded my comments when I replied to Cirt, and Lugnuts who attacked Richard-of-Earth .Bunser (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)"Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." Bunser created the AfD, it's hardly hounding for him to respond there. Please read policies before accusing others of going against them. Do you have diffs of him hounding you? Ian.thomson (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a case of hounding as explained above. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, but thanks for your input. Lugnuts (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts just attacked me again, quote- It's not an attack before you go crying to the admin again. Thats like saying, "i'm not cursing you when I'm saying you are a piece of ****"Bunser (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Thats like saying..." Sounds like original research to me. Lugnuts (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that's an article policy, right? Not a behavioral policy? Your behavior has from unacceptable to unexplainable. You don't want an admin to push you into the hole you're digging yourself, do you? I recommend not saying anything to or about Bunser and only commenting on article content. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bunser is certainly not asuming good faith with lines like "Thats like saying, "i'm not cursing you when I'm saying you are a piece of ****". That's what I was trying to point out. I've never said, and never will say that he is a ***** of ****. OK? Lugnuts (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have just closed the AfD as no-consensus because of the about of vitriol on the page, so it can be started over more peaceably. I am in fact not referring primarily to the edits above, but to the behavior of another user whom I blocked for a short period for also vandalizing talk pages of those opposed to them in the argument. I would strongly suggest to the editors above that they just disengage. Their replies to each other here are not helping anything. DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ankitbhatt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User talk:Lugnuts (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Lugnuts|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

After spamming my talkpage with something I have no interest in, this user then resorted to name calling. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not spamming. I will ask editor to leave you alone. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The comments may not be welcome but WP:SPAM states:

"There are three types of wikispam. These are advertisements masquerading as articles, external link spamming and adding references with the aim of promoting the author or the work being referenced."

None of these are the situation. Please deescalate. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see this in the vein of "Click here to take our survery!" spam. You know, the type of email any sane person would delete without reading. Now address the issue about the personal attack. Lugnuts (talk) 09:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, I know this will once again be classified as a personal attack by the concerned editor and others, so I will proceed anyways.

Frankly, I'm least bothered by this issue. I have handled the case of another off-handle editor reporting me to Wikiquette very recently. In my view, I asked Lugnuts to peer-review Ra.One in greater detail. Seeing the really surprising tone he used to me (who is a complete stranger), I wanted to leave him alone as he certainly seemed to have issues. However, his last comment "bother someone else..." and "time-wasting process like peer reviewing" got me upset. After all, if a previous article of his didn't get a review, is that my fault? One can always ask an unfamiliar editor to peer-review your article just so that it gets noticed and the backlog is reduced. If I have done any wrong in doing so, please point it out. And I want to make it clear to Lugnuts that this isn't my first peer review - I have worked very heavily on 2003 Afro-Asian Games, a GA, and I know all the works of a peer review. Don't think I am a novice who needs ticking-down or any editing lessons from you. At that time, no editor considered it "spamming" to ask an editor to peer-review. Quite the contrary, it shows interest in improving Wikipedia standards. And I have a strong reason to believe the self-bruised and arrogant tone used has a connection with a recent WP:Film-related event, but I will not disclose it for the fact that some more unwanted comments come tumbling out. I hate unpleasantness, my wish was very professional and I had no intention of hurting, harming or "spamming" anyone else. And the way he's making the matter is like as if I have committed a grievous and unforgivable error. Please, enough of hysterics. The way Lugnuts jumped with joy at the very idea of dragging an editor to Wikiquette signals imbalance, and I don't generally listen to such people. Walter, please sort this matter out as you see fit. I have work to do on Ra.One, and cannot waste time on such silly and ego-inflated issues. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 10:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Way to gloss over the personal attack issue. How was that justified? Explain. Lugnuts (talk) 10:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't. Ankitbhatt, posting again on Lugnuts talk page after his first response was inappropriate. WP is a volunteer activity, Lugnuts is under no obligation to edit at all, let alone take some action you want them to. To be clear, you were quite wrong to keep hounding his talk page.

Lugnuts, while not finding fault with any of your actions, in the future, I'd suggest just ignoring post from editors who exhibit WP:IDNHT behavior -- the result ends up being pretty much the same and it's less work. Gerardw (talk) 11:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I violated all WP rules. I'm a criminal. I always break the rules. I never get along with anyone. I was wrong, I was uncivil, I behaved inappropriately, I am a fool, I am not fit to be in Wikipedia. In short, I am at fault all the time and everyone else is right to put me down. Is that all you want to say? Great. Because I've heard all of this much before, and it doesn't bother me anymore that I am always specifically targeted and that everyone will willingly take the other person's side. I am busy, and whatever happens hereafter will have more permanent consequences. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 12:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I was wrong, I was uncivil, I behaved inappropriately, I am a fool, I am not fit to be in Wikipedia." Correct. Close the door on your way out. Still awaiting that apology, or are you too "busy"? Lugnuts (talk) 13:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a realistic expectation. Is it not sufficient that Ankibhatt leaves you alone if the future?Gerardw (talk) 13:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apology? You won't be getting any apology from me in my lifetime, Mr. Lugnuts. Please show off your over-smart attitude somewhere else. Not in front of me. And yes, you too can follow your advice and shut yourself on the way out. And as for Mr. Gerardw, if you think that I am still violating every rule in the book, go ahead and get me blocked. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 13:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is saying a user is actiing like a punk in an edit summery on a tal page a PA?Slatersteven (talk) 19:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, would you feel attacked if someone called you a punk in an edit summary? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the context. Is the term being used in a derogatory fashion or is it being used in the genre and sub-culture way? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs are good [[19]]. Yes, it's incivil. Gerardw (talk) 01:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I had said on the articls talk page, no more uncivility or I would report it, I don't care who the target was.Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bubblegumcrunch is repeatedly attacking other editors as vandals. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My position is very clear. I am not repeatedly attacking "other editors". If you read the page in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chancellorpink you will see my position. I believe the evidence indicates that user Mark of the Beast is, at the very least, supporting vandalism by his behavior. No one else, just Mark of the Beast. I believe he nominated a page for deletion in support of a vandal, and that his nomination was not in good faith. I believe the process, as it pertains to the page in question http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chancellorpinkto was begun with suspicious timing and motive, especially the standard for notability has been demonstrated. Mark of the Beast has never addressed why he first WENT to the page, only 3 minuets after a vandal blanked the page, to nominate it for deletion. It would take longer than 3 minutes to carefully review the page and its sources in order to reach a proper conclusion as to whether or not notability was met. Yet the nomination occurred 3 minutes after the vanadalism/reversion. That's simply not enough time to make a good faith nomination for deletion, and the timing of the visit and nomination clearly appears to aid a vandal in their desired goal: to eliminate the page.

It was a page that stood unmolested for nearly 3 years. Then a vandal blanks it and replaces it with a slur, which is immediately reverted. Then 3 minutes later, Mark of the Beast appears to nominate the page for deletion. Again, where is the time to review the page? How could a nomination be made in such short time? Why would it be made, on a page that had just been rescued from vandalism? Then after the nomination is made, the vandal reappears to add some language to the reverted page, and that language is reverted again. Mark of the Beast has never answered the questions as to why he went to the page, only 3 minutes after it was vandalized, and chose to nominate it for deletion, only three minutes after a vandal tried to remove the page, etc. His nomination comes sandwiched between two acts of vandalism by the same person, and it is made in a period of time that is simply not sufficient to indicate a good faith nomination.

I believe the timing of these acts of vandalism, in relation to Mark of the Beast's nomination for deletion, should render his nomination as questionable, at best, with respect to good faith. I believe the good faith doctrine says as much, expressly. I believe the nomination should be dismissed, especially as the nomination is meritless on the facts. If nothing else, the timing of the nomination appears to be an effort to give the vandal what the vandal wanted, the destruction of the page. I would hope this site would look down upon any efforts that would appear to aid in the service of vandalism.

One does not have to BE a vandal, but to in any way aid a vandal's end should call into question good faith. A nomination for deletion made in 3 minutes or less, following vandalism, fails to meet the standard of good faith.

As for "etiquette", I am sorry, but in a case where there are TWO separate acts of vandalism on a page, and in between those two acts, someone nominates the page for deletion, only 3 minutes later, I do not believe that good faith needs to be assumed, even by your own rules, which, about the guideline of good faith, state: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (vandalism)." Bubblegumcrunch (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bubblegumcrunch, as previously suggested by Tigerboy [20], please drop the WP:STICK. If the nomination is bogus the community will keep the page and if it's not, it's not. If you wish to pursue the claim that Mark The Beast is sockpuppet or meatpuppet, the place for that is WP:SPI, not the AFD page. Gerardw (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will pursue it, don't worry, hopefully to a place where they actually read. You people act like there is never a valid controversy and everything is above board 24/7. lol Must be nice. To quote my dear Friend of the Vandals, Mark of the Beast, "Whatever." Bubblegumcrunch (talk) 02:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]